Spitting on Vietnam Soldiers

Um...I think she's trying to say that we may face the supression they faced if we didn't do anything about Iraq...Sorry, but I totally disagree, FlowerChild, if that's what you mean.

 

we were lashing out in the dark.If we knew who the eniemy was why didn't we deal with it beforehand?Why didn't we try for peace first?It's too easy to kill.

 

damn hippies out of control

 

Hi yall;
What troubled me most about the Peace Movement was the pro communist element in it. These people found all military activity by "The Capitolist West" as "abhorrant, evil, genocidal and colonialist". The military aggressions of "the Peacefull Socialist Peoples" were either kind of smirked at or labelled as something like "the glorious forward march of socialist fraternity for the certain benefit of all mankind." Then there were the college kids who just plain did not want to go and were working in their own opportunistic interests. Some pretty high hypocracy on both these two cases. The Pacifist element found all military activity reprehensible and waste of precious resources. Bingo Pacifists! What they never did explain was what was to be done should the less enlightened take up arms and attack.
Vietnam was pretty far from the US and no direct threat to the US-and certainly the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong never committed any 9-11 style atrocities on the American population (there were a series of mass atrocities in SE Asia after the NVA victory-but that is another story). Still there was the argument that this was World Communism swallowing up another third world nation and that it had to be stopped somewhere. The US leadership could not have picked a more difficult nut to crack! And they certainly made a lot of mistakes! And in the end they lost.
Me-I have no absolutist ideolgy to draw answers from, and a lot more questions than answers about just what happened during the day. Maybe historians down the pike will get a better perspective on the intellectual currents, clash of cultures, technological advances, cultural ferment, and the jarring dislocations all this caused . For certain our modern world was born back in the sixties.
Tundrahopper

 

Ah, but things would maybe have been quite different to begin with if I were in charge...

But I am certain that if I had any control over how something like that was handled, I would have made certain that it was studied from every angle very thoroughly, and not covered up or invented any details. I would not have had a war already planned and then used something like 9-11 as an excuse. No honour in that. If it were possible to find the REAL, undisputed culprits behind 9-11 after a thorough investigation of all evidence, I would have sent special forces (like police) to find, infiltrate, whatever they had to do, to bring the criminals in, just like any other criminal investigation would go. They would be tried and held just like any other person being charged with a crime.

I would make every effort to help create something like a world "police" force with the specific idea in mind of making war not only illegal, but completely unacceptable on a global scale. I would do my best to be-friend all other world leaders and get some focus going on between everyone and try to come up with common goals for the problems of getting along, rather than cultivate an "us versus them" mentality. Kucinich's idea of a dept. of peace would go a long way...
Acceptance, as much as humanly possible. What if we made ourselves as a country completely indespensible in the greater sceme of things. We were, at one time, striving to be the "good guys" on the block. We need to go back to that WITH A VENGENCE.

"War was the only retaliation". You make it sound like no big deal... Gee, that's all we did was start a war to retaliate....
Or did you mean that it was the only ACCEPTABLE retaliation?
And anyhow, we all pretty much realize by now that we "retaliated" against the wrong guys. Go figure...

 

Sounds a lot like the U.N. peacekeeping troops, and we all know how effective they are.

Terrorism is both illegal and unacceptable on a global scale, and yet it proliferates.

As long as there are those who believe that their way is the only way, and that everyone else must adhere to their way or die, there will be war and terrorism. It's a pretty bleak scenario, and yes I can't help doubting the human race as a whole will ever become so understanding and accepting.

Let me ask everyone this: the incidents of protesters spitting on soldiers and calling them baby killers, whether it happened rarely or often, did those incidents help or hurt the anti-war cause?

I say it hurt the cause. The war wasn't brought to an end until mainstream America joined the movement, and they were shocked and alienated by such attacks. It painted protesters, all protesters, in a negative light. Thus I say if the movement had remained peaceful, orderly and respectful, the Vietnam war would have ended sooner.

 

i agree except for the last/It wasn't until we got their attention and seriously interupted their war efforts that they pulled out.Hanoi Jane's efforts against the bombing/People still hate her,but when Nixon couldn't drop bombs he pulled out.

 

EarthMother, you have a very tunnel-vision look on life...How can a 51 year old be so naive?

Newo, I totally agree with you.

 

Peopaganda put out and perpetuated by the pro war effort to hurt the anti war cause.It's more likely the facts were the other way around,the soldirs spitting on the hippies.

 

Pot calling kettle black. Naive about what?

I get the whole thing, I really do. I see all the sides. But I don't agree with all of them. If I did, I would be mentally ill.

Opinions are opinions. One should look at all sides of an issue before they form theirs. Mostly it's about psychology. Understanding why people take the paths they do. Action/reaction. And then determining what is the necessary action in order to get the desired reaction. Violence begets more violence, anger begets more anger, negativity is contageous.

I know human nature, I know the difference between narrow mindedness and not. Narrow mindedness is when ALL you can see is your side. And you don't even want to hear anybody elses. At all. Because it differs from yours. That is the mentality that starts wars.

There is a world of difference between being naive and taking an educated stand on an issue.

Most humans are lazy. Human nature is to take the easiest route. And the easiest route is anger, violence, negativity. Just like falling off a bridge. Way too easy. It's all downhill... It takes a little more thought and self control to take the more difficult route, which is the one less travelled by. Don't you wish everyone would?

This conversation is growing pretty funny actually. Soldiers go to war, thousands of people get killed or maimed for life, their homes and countrys and cultures get destroyed, but the most important thing is whether or not someone got spat on???? Guess that just goes to show the warped mentality of those who ARE narrowminded...

 

Okay, have you ever been to war, or even been a soldier?

If you havn't how can you possibly look at both sides of the argument?

It's all well and good looking at both sides, but do you actually know what it's like to feel that side and to be that side?

 

what side ?

 

It was in regards to EarthMothers "One should look at all sides of an issue before they form theirs.".

I'm enlisted for the REME's (Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers) in the British Army, Paul.

 

so you fix things ?

 

I'll be an Armourer (Weapons Maintenance). I'm currently just sorting out some other stuff before going in.

 

weapon maintenance aye is that like checking weapons etc ? did you go to the falklands or are yer a new to the british army ? also what made you wanna join the military ? . soz for all the questions but just curiose to know .

 

Have you ever been Charles Manson,if not how do you know he was wrong.Have you ever been a pacifist?You're about as one sided as one can get.I don't need to kill babies in order to know that it's wrong.Try to play the other side before rushing in to kill anyone innocent or not just to appease your guilt over 9/11.

 

See now, out of the hundreds of thosuands of soldiers who went through Vietnam, how many killed babies? More psychos in America during the time probably killed more children on our own soil then troops did in Vietnam.

What I won't deny though is when it comes to air bombing and artillery, there are no soldiers, civilians and babies, just targets.

 

Yes, I have been a pacifist. And yes, I have been both sides of the argument. How can you make such a judgment on me personally?

 

I'm new to the Army. Yes, it involves checking/fixing weapons.

I hope you arn't going to argue with me, because I don't want to cause tension amongst a fellow UK Forumer, in all due respect.